FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRELAND AIRPORT WEST (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Introduction of Defined Contribution Pension Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Ireland Airport West (Knock) and SIPTU in relation to the Union's claim for the introduction of a Defined Contribution (DC) Scheme for hourly paid staff employed at the airport.
Management reject the claim on the basis of a lack of available funding to operate a pension scheme for the claimants.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th December 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th March, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management and salaried staff employed at the airport are in receipt of a DC Pension Scheme. It is unacceptable that hourly paid staff are not provided with the same entitlements.
2 Discussions took place on restructuring and future flexibilities within the organisation in return for meaningful engagement on the introduction of a pension scheme for the workers in question. The workers continue to provide workplace flexibilities yet management contend it cannot afford to fund the pension scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company cannot afford to sustain the costs of introducing a pension scheme for the workers. In the current economic climate, with falling staff numbers and service users the introduction of the scheme is totally unaffordable.
2 The Company previously offered to introduce a DC Pension Scheme which would beequally contributed to by both the employer and the workers, yet this proposal was rejected by the Union. The Union is now seeking the introduction of the pension scheme it previously rejected at a time when the costs can no longer be borne by the employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for the introduction of a defined contribution pension scheme for hourly paid staff, similar to that applying to salaried grades. The Company told the Court that in the current extremely difficult trading circumstances it did not have the financial resources to concede the Union’s claim at this point.
The Court notes that the Company accept that a pension scheme should be introduced for the staff represented by the Union. Both the Union and the Company had entered into discussions on organisational restructuring and flexibilities on the understanding that a pension scheme would be introduced, however, the proposals which emerged were rejected.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court recommends that a defined contribution pension scheme comparable with the existing staff scheme should be introduced for the workers concerned, therefore the parties should meet to discuss the introduction of such a scheme which should be introduced on a cost effective basis.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th March 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.